• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House Passes 2009 SCHIP Bill

ARealConservative said:
I would love to see a study proving the cost of tobacco. Seems to me the shortened life span significantly reduces the cost to government. Add in the life time of additional taxes paid by those that provide their own health care costs, and I can't help but wonder if the truth is far different then what we are led to believe.

Cutting down on food & smoke does not save your money! - The Financial Express
Click to expand...

So you acknowledge that smoking harms smokers and other people that breathe in that smoke? Yet you say that the cost of lung cancer is negligible?
 
Smoke[MaxX] said:
So you acknowledge that smoking harms smokers and other people that breathe in that smoke? Yet you say that the cost of lung cancer is negligible?
Click to expand...
Who cares? The issue is people being taxed and having their money go to things they may or may not support.
 
Smoke[MaxX] said:
So you acknowledge that smoking harms smokers and other people that breathe in that smoke? Yet you say that the cost of lung cancer is negligible?
Click to expand...

Yes, the cost to government is likely negligible and possibly even a positive.

The very first sentence from the article I linked: Preventing obesity and smoking can save lives, but it doesn’t save money
 
aps said:
*yawn* Insult me all you want. I have no shame in how I feel about smoking and smokers, and I am reveling in all the no-smoking laws that are getting passed around the United States. Do you think all these people making the laws are uncalm, irrational, and illogical adults?

You're the one that is furious about these laws being passed. So why you think you're calm, rational, and logical is beyond me. You're blinded by your anger. Pot, meet kettle.
Click to expand...

We all know that smokers occupy the lowest rung of humanity. Give them all a room to smoke in so they can kill each other. The human race will be better for eliminating their stupidity from the gene pool.:mrgreen:
 
American said:
If it doesn't hurt me I don't care. Good I don't use that product, let them tax the hell out of it. Disgusting, you don't mind giving away other people's freedoms. Be careful what you don't care about, you might get it.
Click to expand...

But it is ok for smokers to violate the freedoms of nonsmokers by polluting the air around them with poison.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Stop using rational thinking and logic it confuses the emotional non thinkers.
Click to expand...

If a person chooses to be obese through his or her own actions, that is their problem. However, when you smoke, you now only destroy your own health, you poison all those around you breathing the poison from your cancer sticks.
 
ludahai said:
If a person chooses to be obese through his or her own actions, that is their problem. However, when you smoke, you now only destroy your own health, you poison all those around you breathing the poison from your cancer sticks.
Click to expand...

same is true if you choose to operate a motor vehicle.
 
ludahai said:
If a person chooses to be obese through his or her own actions, that is their problem. However, when you smoke, you now only destroy your own health, you poison all those around you breathing the poison from your cancer sticks.
Click to expand...

False, I don't smoke around other people.

Try again.
 
Last edited:
ARealConservative said:
Yes, the cost to government is likely negligible and possibly even a positive.

The very first sentence from the article I linked: Preventing obesity and smoking can save lives, but it doesn’t save money
Click to expand...

So let's let people harm themselves (and others through second and third-hand smoke) so that we can save money? Why not just put rat poison in everybody's food once they reach 50 then?
 
Smoke[MaxX] said:
So let's let people harm themselves (and others through second and third-hand smoke) so that we can save money? Why not just put rat poison in everybody's food once they reach 50 then?
Click to expand...

nice straw man.

This is about taxing something and claiming it is justified because of the cost associated.

If you want to argue for the outright prohibition, then do so, but this argument is hiding behind tax increases alone.
 
missypea said:
I read this:

I'm pissed because some fat lady (who doesn't deserve health care because she's so fat) is getting health care.

WUT??

:confused:
Click to expand...

You should have read, I'm pissed because some fat lady is causing increases in my premiums because she chooses to do NOTHING about being fat.

Come on, missypea. I'm insulted.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Why is Nationalized Health Care a great thing to have?
Click to expand...

You do realize that a NHC program can allow you to pick from your current doctor or another no?

You do realize that stripping out insurance profits can subsantially reduce costs to you for the same medical benefits no? In some ways, NHC can eliminate the middle man in the same fashion that Dell eliminated the middle man.

Why do individuals like yourself have to force people to participate when they don't want to?
Click to expand...

So you're for pacifists refusing to pay taxes because they fund war?
Or companies that pollute to pay for superfund clean ups?
 
This legislation punishes smokers that don't smoke around people (i.e. just in their homes), but it addresses the health needs of people that may be harmed by a far greater majority of public smokers.

Libertarians just don't like the idea of government taxing anyone on anything... but that is the modern era. The population is so huge, and management much more complex. If you want to continue living in a developed nation, there has to be someone maintaining it. Local community living is becoming a thing of the past due to increasingly complex interconnected economy, not to mention foreign entanglement. Much smaller government = you don't survive.

Better to tax smokers who don't care about the risks to their own health and the health of others, than to just tax everybody for the same policy. Smokers are indeed a demonized group, but it's not unfairly so. There are studies up the wazoo on smoking and second hand smoke. If people want to continue to perpetuate health problems, then the system will be financially unkind to them. I think that is fair.
 
Middleground said:
That's pretty much how I see it, too. Plus, hitting the pocketbook of smokers will likely reduce the amount of smokers, so it's all in the benefit of health.

Here in Canada, smokes are almost $10.00 a pack. A lot of that is tax money that goes into our universal healthcare system.
Click to expand...

I`ll bet you and American woman are in favor of the ,"Fart Tax", on cows and other ,already taxed, food sources. I`m not trying to be funny here...,the Fart Tax is a very real bill proposed by some psychotic rep with the EPA. Cigs are already taxed...ATF gets a cut,the mfgrs of the paper pays a tax,the states throw in their sales tax,the farmer who grows the tobacco (I`m sure) pays layers and layers of taxes. Tax and spend governments and societies have more people liveing on the streets than do more responsible societies. Taxes are another of the many domains of the our MONEY WHOREING society. I think thats realy whats pissin people off here. TAX and SPEND...Big Brother and the Control Freaks Company...new leed singer, Barry Husein Obamma:2razz:
 
aps said:
You should have read, I'm pissed because some fat lady is causing increases in my premiums because she chooses to do NOTHING about being fat.

Come on, missypea. I'm insulted.
Click to expand...

Insulting you was never my intention, Aps. I see what you meant is different from what I read.

I'm curious if you really know this woman or not. If you're on intimate terms with her and someone she trusts to confide in then your story about her doing nothing to get healthier is probably true.

I'm curious because of people I work with who think they know me. Some would say they know me well but only one person (at work) truly does.

We all tell ourselves stories to make things make sense. I'm just wondering if this is your story or her story.

Is she fat because she chooses to do nothing about her weight?
Does she struggle with a medical condition that you're unaware of?
Does she lack the tools to make changes in her life?

:twocents:
 
danarhea said:
That's right. You heard it correctly. The Federal government is about to put a 61 cent tax on each pack of cigarettes in order to pay for the SCHIP program. Taxes will also be levied on cigars, smokeless tobacco, and all other tobacco products. This means that, if you are a smoker, or if you chew, the government is going to take more money out of your pocket and give it to someone else.

Now Bush had his problems (a whole crapload of them), but at least he vetoed this theft of money from taxpayers last year after Congress passed it. But there is a new moneygrubber in town, and his name is Obama.

The Senate is taking up the bill right now, and if you are against the Federal government redistributing YOUR money to others, now is the time to let your Senator know that a vote for this bill means one less vote for him when he comes up for reelection.
Click to expand...

This is merely the tip of the Obama iceberg that will make Americans wish for the Bush years.
 
Middleground said:
That's pretty much how I see it, too. Plus, hitting the pocketbook of smokers will likely reduce the amount of smokers, so it's all in the benefit of health.

Here in Canada, smokes are almost $10.00 a pack. A lot of that is tax money that goes into our universal healthcare system.
Click to expand...

I wonder what happens when everyone stops smoking and they don't have that revenue; I guess they will have to start taxing fattening foods because that is evil too. :roll:
 
americanwoman said:
You are right, as a non smoker, I wouldn't foot the bill. I wouldn't mind though another tax that would be equal to all.


I mean who doesn't want health care for children?
Click to expand...

But it begs the question; why do people think that the Government is the only solution for healthcare for children?
 
Truth Detector said:
But it begs the question; why do people think that the Government is the only solution for healthcare for children?
Click to expand...

In 2000 as a part of the Republican platform Bush promised expanded health care via privatization......How has that worked out?
 
danarhea said:
That's right. You heard it correctly. The Federal government is about to put a 61 cent tax on each pack of cigarettes in order to pay for the SCHIP program. Taxes will also be levied on cigars, smokeless tobacco, and all other tobacco products. This means that, if you are a smoker, or if you chew, the government is going to take more money out of your pocket and give it to someone else.

Now Bush had his problems (a whole crapload of them), but at least he vetoed this theft of money from taxpayers last year after Congress passed it. But there is a new moneygrubber in town, and his name is Obama.

Article is here.

An excellent editorial about what SCHIP means for smokers is here.

The Senate is taking up the bill right now, and if you are against the Federal government redistributing YOUR money to others, now is the time to let your Senator know that a vote for this bill means one less vote for him when he comes up for reelection.
Click to expand...

Personally I think the high tax on cigarettes is absurd as hell to begin with. Rather than putting a restriction on some of the deadly chemicals that cigarettes contain (Canada did this I believe) the government just taxes it, which means that they just want a piece of the pie. The tobacco companies are blatantly poisoning people and rather than doing the right thing our government just puts on a high tax and is essentially complicit. They could give a rats ass about what cigarettes contain and what those chemicals do to people.
 
obvious Child said:
Not really. Motor Vehicles are not designed primarily to destroy one's health and the health of others. Furthermore, electric and hybrids have far less emissions.
Click to expand...
So because something "primarily" destroys your health, you deserve to be taxed more? How are you coming to such an asinine conclusion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom